tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post4599397184856138057..comments2016-12-08T11:10:00.186-05:00Comments on Boston 1775: Is That a Veto in Your Pocket?J. L. Bellnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-77336144485944641262008-01-02T22:42:00.000-05:002008-01-02T22:42:00.000-05:00Thanks for your compliment. What I've had to leave...Thanks for your compliment. What I've had to leave out of this essay, because I have no knowledge of it, is how U.S. courts have interpreted that part of the Constitution since 1787.<BR/><BR/>In baseball, umpires say, a pitch is neither a strike nor a ball until they call it. In the law, the language of the Constitution and its apparent context are interpreted by the courts, and if they say those clauses validate a veto-proof pocket veto in the middle of a Congressional term, then that's the rule. Even if it couldn't have been what the Constitutional Convention had in mind. <BR/><BR/>My impression is that that's not the rule, at least at the ironclad Supreme Court level. But only because no Presidency has been willful enough to challenge Congress that far. Maybe this one will try.J. L. Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-43049620684800938452008-01-02T14:25:00.000-05:002008-01-02T14:25:00.000-05:00Thank you for your clear and concise explanation o...Thank you for your clear and concise explanation of the pocket veto. I doubt the president has anyone to advise him on matters pertaining to the Constitution who is as knowledgable as you - or perhaps the powers conveyed to him by the Constitution are not of interest to him. I wish you would send this to the Washington Post, where a wider audience could read it and be informed!dbdagnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17320894209464651309noreply@blogger.com